BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 11:45

Username Protected wrote:

How about the Beech Starship for a billion lost.

Eclipse $6B lost.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 11:50

Username Protected wrote:

It's thread creep, but the Tamarack C525 winglets just got EASA approved and are claiming 900lbs per hour for the first hour and 600lbs per hour thereafter....

That 600pph is at FL410. Compare that to stock numbers. A bit of a savings but not monumental for the cost of the winglets.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 11:51

Username Protected wrote:

It isn't a flawed basic concept. A light weight twin jet with traditional planform is right. That serves as an example of what Cirrus COULD have built and how it COULD have performed.

If the SF50 were so basically flawed they wouldn't bother building it.

There's no way I would ever ever do what you're proposing Cirrus is doing. I don't know anyone who would either.

We shall see what end product does. Til then it's silly to keep speculating. That video posted already shows the SF50 having much better performance than what has been suggested in this thread. We shall see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 11:52

Username Protected wrote:

The performance in the video revealed it to be a weaker performer than a TP and that was a sales video.

What is there to like?

Weaker than what turboprop?

A TBM 900 is a $4MM airplane. A new PC12NG is $5MM. Apples and oranges.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 12:30

I lost count. Who's winning? :popcorn:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 12:40

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Eclipse $6B lost.

And yet, it is designed the way you would do it.

Nope, they wasted the money on stuff I wouldn't have, avionics being a major part of that.

As I said, their execution STUNK.

The Eclipse serves as an example of what the performance can be with two engine at 6000 lbs weight.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 12:41

Epic

It goes faster, farther, carries more, is bigger and does it all on less gas.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 12:41

Username Protected wrote:

That video posted already shows the SF50 having much better performance than what has been suggested in this thread.

Who suggested the SF50 couldn't do what the video showed? I have not seen anyone say that.

I think you are making this up to falsely establish some sort of achievement on their part.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 14:26

Username Protected wrote:

Epic

It goes faster, farther, carries more, is bigger and does it all on less gas.

This. If it gets certified and hits the number projected, it will be an incredible machine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 14:26

Quote:

Cirrus promised that more details would be made available shortly, but has previously descibed their proposed offering as "slowest, lowest, and cheapest jet available."

That says it all.

The only question is will anybody buy the Slowest, lowest and cheapest, and most probably the shortest range jet on the market ? @ +$2.2M ??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 14:35

Username Protected wrote:

Epic

It goes faster, farther, carries more, is bigger and does it all on less gas.

Not a jet. No chute. No major brand stability and support network. Needs a big hangar.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 15:05

Username Protected wrote:

Epic

It goes faster, farther, carries more, is bigger and does it all on less gas.

Not a jet. No chute. No major brand stability and support network. Needs a big hangar.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 15:15

Your talking to a guy who was very tempted at Osh by Epic. I love the airplane and it makes sense for me. I would not buy a Cirrus, but I can still understand why thousands do.

Aviation is all about compromises. Beyond the obvious Cirrus haters, I think there are fair criticisms of the plane. I also think it offers a lot of bang for the buck. If the ownership experience is turn key and simple, it will be well received. Many owner operators are not enthusiasts and don't want to spend every waking hour thinking about flying and maintaining their plane. This is why Savvy built their business around Cirrus owners.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 15:21

There are only two ways to product success:

1. Making a better product than anyone else.
2. Making a product that's more convenient or simpler to use.

The SF50 skeptics are hung up on point 1. But a product can be just as successful following point 2. In fact, people will often chose a product that's worse than the competition, if it's more convenient or saves them hassle. So the saying you you need to build a better mouse trap isn't true. You just need to build one that's more convenient.

History is absolutely full of such examples. Never underestimate the laziness of mankind.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2016, 15:36

Username Protected wrote:

There are only two ways to product success:

1. Making a better product than anyone else.
2. Making a product that's more convenient or simpler to use.

The SF50 skeptics are hung up on point 1. But a product can be just as successful following point 2. In fact, people will often chose a product that's worse than the competition, if it's more convenient or saves them hassle. So the saying you you need to build a better mouse trap isn't true. You just need to build one that's more convenient.

History is absolutely full of such examples. Never underestimate the laziness of mankind.

Well, you really can't fault Cirrus marketing with "Slowest, lowest and cheapest" :clap:

So you think there's a bunch of lazy people around with over $2M in their pocket for a Under-performing jet ?

Cirrus: Hey, we told ya from the beginning it was gunna be a dog :oops:

Single engine pressurized above FL 250